Would you like help with determining your dichotomies?

[HoneyBlossom]

Here’s my result. I didn’t answer all of them because some question isn’t me but some other question i can be both but at least i did it! ^^

My result
I : 18 vs E : 1
N : 15 vs S : 8
F : 18 vs T : 12
P : 16 vs J : 9

 

[Shadow Play]

Here’s my result. I didn’t answer all of them because some question isn’t me but some other question i can be both but at least i did it! ^^

My result
I : 18 vs E : 1
N : 15 vs S : 8
F : 18 vs T : 12
P : 16 vs J : 9

Are your scores inconsistent with the number of test items because you miscounted, or because you chose multiple responses for some items?

 

[HoneyBlossom]

Are your scores inconsistent with the number of test items because you miscounted, or because you chose multiple responses for some items?

I think I counted how much point or score do I have mostly like I have score more introverted than extrovert like example I have 5 introverted and 13 extroverted and I have more extrovert than introverted but some question I answered like both because both are very similar to me and some question are none because some question doesn’t match my personality. But it doesn’t matter do I have to choice both and none or do I have to choice one of the answer mostly? If I miscounted then I can show my answered.

 

[Hiraeth]

P: 20 J: 3
N: 25 S: 1
I: 21 E: 0
F: 20 T: 3

I type as ISFP on MBTI. I disagree with certain elements such as "imaginative" and "innovative" = N. However, I only subscribe to this type based on cognitive function theory and there are areas where INFP would be a better fit by description, so there's that. I am also a 4w5 on the enneagram, though not too certain on my instinctual stacking.

 

[Shadow Play]

I think I counted how much point or score do I have mostly like I have score more introverted than extrovert like example I have 5 introverted and 13 extroverted and I have more extrovert than introverted but some question I answered like both because both are very similar to me and some question are none because some question doesn’t match my personality. But it doesn’t matter do I have to choice both and none or do I have to choice one of the answer mostly? If I miscounted then I can show my answered.

Ok, so you chose both answers for some items. That's fair enough. I suspect INFP is the best fitting type for you overall, based on browsing your posts and profile.

P: 20 J: 3
N: 25 S: 1
I: 21 E: 0
F: 20 T: 3

I type as ISFP on MBTI. I disagree with certain elements such as "imaginative" and "innovative" = N. However, I only subscribe to this type based on cognitive function theory and there are areas where INFP would be a better fit by description, so there's that. I am also a 4w5 on the enneagram, though not too certain on my instinctual stacking.

If you consistently test as an INFP on tests, then you're not an MBTI ISFP.

Even though having an imagination and willingness to innovate are not strictly exclusive to Intuitives, they are traits which suggest a possible N preference. The corresponding Big Five factor, Openness to Experience, consists of facets such as active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.

In all honesty, I think functions based analyses have lead you off the rails. I get that you could justify yourself as an ISFP out of some notion that you have some kind of Se/Ni axis, or that you identify with Ni, etc. I just don't see how it makes sense for someone to type themselves with dichotomies while claiming they mean something different. Why not be an INFP by dichotomies, and an Fi-Se-Ni-Te using Grant stacks?

 

[Hiraeth]

If you consistently test as an INFP on tests, then you're not an MBTI ISFP.

Even though having an imagination and willingness to innovate are not strictly exclusive to Intuitives, they are traits which suggest a possible N preference. The corresponding Big Five factor, Openness to Experience, consists of facets such as active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.

In all honesty, I think functions based analyses have lead you off the rails. I get that you could justify yourself as an ISFP out of some notion that you have some kind of Se/Ni axis, or that you identify with Ni, etc. I just don't see how it makes sense for someone to type themselves with dichotomies while claiming they mean something different. Why not be an INFP by dichotomies, and an Fi-Se-Ni-Te using Grant stacks?

I actually used to test as an ISFP pretty consistently when I was younger (late teens to early twenties). I believe that my tertiary Ni was developing around then and it has gotten much stronger over the years. My Se is weaker than average, but not to the point where I wouldn't consider myself detail-oriented and aesthetic driven. I was more concrete as a child than now. I probably had an unusual development for an Se user that lead me to be more intuitive because of how naturally introverted I am. I also suspect being a type 4 has something to do with it.

It seems all well and good to type as an INFP now, but keeping in mind that I consistently typed as ISFP on tests when younger as well as lacking Ne compared to other obvious Ne users would make me feel like a phony. All I care about is to make sure I get everything right with the least amount of bias as possible.

 

[Shadow Play]

I actually used to test as an ISFP pretty consistently when I was younger (late teens to early twenties). I believe that my tertiary Ni was developing around then and it has gotten much stronger over the years. My Se is weaker than average, but not to the point where I wouldn't consider myself detail-oriented and aesthetic driven. I was more concrete as a child than now. I probably had an unusual development for an Se user that lead me to be more intuitive because of how naturally introverted I am. I also suspect being a type 4 has something to do with it.

It seems all well and good to type as an INFP now, but keeping in mind that I consistently typed as ISFP on tests when younger as well as lacking Ne compared to other obvious Ne users would make me feel like a phony. All I care about is to make sure I get everything right with the least amount of bias as possible.

Ah, so you actually have a history of testing as an ISFP by dichotomies. My mistake. I had jumped to the conclusion because I've noticed a trend on typology forums where
people test as N, only later to conclude they're S types because of functions. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

Since I don't put stock in your preferred function theory, I'm going to try and orient things from a dichotomies perspective. At what point did you start finding N responses
more interesting than S responses? Do you define Ne in terms of traits which describe the average NP, or do you have a more idiosyncratic definition in mind?

 

[Hiraeth]

Ah, so you actually have a history of testing as an ISFP by dichotomies. My mistake. I had jumped to the conclusion because I've noticed a trend on typology forums where
people test as N, only later to conclude they're S types because of functions. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

Since I don't put stock in your preferred function theory, I'm going to try and orient things from a dichotomies perspective. At what point did you start finding N responses
more interesting than S responses? Do you define Ne in terms of traits which describe the average NP, or do you have a more idiosyncratic definition in mind?

I've noticed taking interest at different times in my life, but some have always been a natural part of who I am (i.e. being idealistic, future-oriented, not living in the moment, terrible at being practical, day-dreamy). So I do share that common aspect of being a very imaginative child in my own world. I was also very good at drawing from an extremely young age and exhibited above average spatial skills in art, adept at noticing the slightest details in objects. However, I had trouble with abstract art and wasn't as creative as others who would come up with really creative ideas through their imagination. I preferred copying subjects from my external environment, so I always needed a reference. I was into more realistic forms of art growing up and looked down at anything too abstract, including the meaning behind the artwork. It wasn't until later on in my late teens when I started becoming more conceptual, and I've often wondered if this was something that came about from taking art classes in general, since we were encouraged to think outside the box.

Also, I was terrible with deciphering poetry and abstract language all throughout primary and secondary school and didn't care much for literature either. I had pretty bad reading comprehension as a child, so I'm uncertain if this could have had something to do with it too. I remember preferring straightforward language in writing because it was far easier for me to understand. I started preferring flowery language and experimental forms of writing as I've grown older and more competent in understanding them during my early twenties, as I have a thing for anything atypical and peculiar due to being easily bored with the conventional and mundane.

I define Ne separate from the average NP traits and purely as a cognitive function. More as basing the external world with various connections that immediately spring to mind. I can do this at times, but it's more sporadic and unnatural in the ways I've noticed it in others. Sometimes it takes time for me to come up with a myriad of ideas, but I'm also trying to laser in on one more often than not, which I suppose is more aligned with the concept of Ni.

 

[cascadeco]

Thanks for the thread [MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION]. I've been on here forever, and in terms of practical application/ how mbti is actually utilized 'out there', I've been more and more inclined lately to scrap functions and return to dichotomies. I've long felt the two 'methods' can yield different results; plus, functions end up being incredibly subjective in terms of how people are typed/peoples' understandings of them. Cool too to have some fresh blood on the forum and more meaty threads!

 

[Shadow Play]

I've noticed taking interest at different times in my life, but some have always been a natural part of who I am (i.e. being idealistic, future-oriented, not living in the moment, terrible at being practical, day-dreamy). So I do share that common aspect of being a very imaginative child in my own world. I was also very good at drawing from an extremely young age and exhibited above average spatial skills in art, adept at noticing the slightest details in objects. However, I had trouble with abstract art and wasn't as creative as others who would come up with really creative ideas through their imagination. I preferred copying subjects from my external environment, so I always needed a reference. I was into more realistic forms of art growing up and looked down at anything too abstract, including the meaning behind the artwork. It wasn't until later on in my late teens when I started becoming more conceptual, and I've often wondered if this was something that came about from taking art classes in general, since we were encouraged to think outside the box.

Also, I was terrible with deciphering poetry and abstract language all throughout primary and secondary school and didn't care much for literature either. I had pretty bad reading comprehension as a child, so I'm uncertain if this could have had something to do with it too. I remember preferring straightforward language in writing because it was far easier for me to understand. I started preferring flowery language and experimental forms of writing as I've grown older and more competent in understanding them during my early twenties, as I have a thing for anything atypical and peculiar due to being easily bored with the conventional and mundane.

I define Ne separate from the average NP traits and purely as a cognitive function. More as basing the external world with various connections that immediately spring to mind. I can do this at times, but it's more sporadic and unnatural in the ways I've noticed it in others. Sometimes it takes time for me to come up with a myriad of ideas, but I'm also trying to laser in on one more often than not, which I suppose is more aligned with the concept of Ni.

Thanks for the thread [MENTION=38365]Shadow Play[/MENTION]. I've been on here forever, and in terms of practical application/ how mbti is actually utilized 'out there', I've been more and more inclined lately to scrap functions and return to dichotomies. I've long felt the two 'methods' can yield different results; plus, functions end up being incredibly subjective in terms of how people are typed/peoples' understandings of them. Cool too to have some fresh blood on the forum and more meaty threads!

I'm going to be honest with both of you. The reason I haven't gotten back to you sooner is because I've been losing confidence in MBTI as a tool for understanding people. I've outlined my reasons in this thread.

In response to cascadeco, dichotomies are indeed what the MBTI is about. Despite the lip service functions receive by official MBTI sources, such as describing an extraverted or introverted attitude in S/N and T/F, the functions are essentially constructs with no independent existence of their own. Proper, "actual" functions as patterns of cognition described on typology forums are not falsifiable, since they cannot be adequately tested for. Besides, it doesn't make sense for function proponents to claim test results are prone to subjective bias while claiming functions are not. It's possible to pull all kinds of mental gymnastics to argue for any type, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem. You notice things in your environment? Se. You use logic to solve problems? Ti. You think about the future? Ni.

As for Malela, I see your recent shift from consistently testing as ISFP by dichotomies to INFP by dichotomies as a sign of an underlying problem with the MBTI. One of the recurring criticisms of MBTI is its questionable retest reliability. About 50% of people who retest within nine months remain the same type, while for those who retest after nine months, only about 36% remain the same type. Chances are the longer the timeframe, the lower the probability would be of consistent retests. I suspect it's entirely possible for someone to have consistent short term test results, but to receive inconsistent results across a longer time frame. Perhaps it's possible that there's been a change in mindset from some subjects, such as the one you've described when you "started becoming more conceptual". Perhaps taking art classes opened doors to a conceptual way of looking at things, who knows?

I can't continue this project in bad faith, knowing that maybe there's something not right with typology. No promises as to when (or even if) this project will continue again.